M. C. Ravikumar vs D. S. Velmurugan - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1107

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1107

VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
M. C. Ravikumar – Appellant
Versus
D. S. Velmurugan – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R. Venkataraman, Adv. Mr. Tanuj Agarwal, Adv. Mr. C. Aravindh, Adv. Mr. Apoorva Singhal, AOR Mr. Ashfaq, Adv. Mr. Akol Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, AOR Mr. Manoj Kumar A., Adv. Mr. Vinayaga Vignesh I, Adv. Ms. V. Swetha, Adv. Mr. Vasu Kalra, Adv.

Table of Content
1. background of loan transactions and property security (Para 4)
2. argument against permissible review of prior order (Para 5 , 6)
3. defense on changing circumstances for quashing (Para 7 , 8)
4. prohibition on multiple petitions under cr.p.c. (Para 12 , 13)
5. second quashing petition review deemed impermissible (Para 14 , 16)
6. restoration of criminal complaint by allowing appeal (Para 17 , 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The instant appeal has been filed against final judgment and order dated 13th September, 2022¹ [Hereinafter, referred to as “impugned order”] passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras² [Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”] in quashing petition³ [Criminal Original Petition No. 16241 of 2022] filed by the respondents herein.⁴ [Hereinafter, referred to as “accused-respondents”] Vide the impugned order, the High Court allowed the quashing petition and quashed the criminal complaint⁵ [Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019] filed by the appellant herein⁶ [Hereinafter, referred to as “complainant” or “appellant-complainant] against the accused-respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 193 , 406, 418,